Girls Gone Wild? Not in Philly!

“I read a story on the plane about the entrepreneur that makes these videos. He's made a fortune, basically, for free.”

“And the amazing thing is these gals get a few brews in them and have no qualms whatsoever about displaying themselves, but don't want me to think of them as a hunk of meat.

What exactly does the term counter-productive mean?”

“That's where you saddle up to the bar counter, buy a chick a beer, ask if you can videotape her topless and she slaps you silly.

Oh wait, that's counter-counter-productive...”

“The judge's reasoning is sound, from a legal standpoint, I think. Some may have some moral issues with it, but that's irrelevant...”

“This could have greater implications, since I think a photo of a naked child is considered kiddy porn, at least in some jurisdictions. This court said no physical contact, no porn.”

“Uh oh, I have photos of my babies in the bathtub splashing and laughing!”

“Some parents have been hauled into court for that. Case is usually dismissed, but after a ton of grief and a few shekels for a lawyer down the tubes.”

“It all depends on the law in your jurisdiction. The FL statute says the photo in question must show physical contact for it to be porn.

Other jurisdictions vary!”

“I can't decide if this is a good ruling or not? Not that I'm a prude or anything, but I always kinda had a problem with the whole "kiddie porn" thing and this ruling could really open up a can of worms and make it really difficult to prosecute what is obvious exploitation of underage girls/boys.”

“United States Code, Title 18, Chapter 110, Sections 2256 and 2257:

I will select the info that is pertinent to this thread.

Section 2256 defines the terms used.
'Sexually explicit conduct' means actual or simulated

-sexual intercourse (of all kinds - use imagination)
- bestiality
- masturbation
- sadistic or masochistic abuse,
or,
- lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person (this seems like the only point of contention that would be open to interpretation of the powers-that-be, in this case)

'Producing' means producing, directing, manufacturing, issuing, publishing, or advertising

'visual depiction' includes undeveloped film and videotape, and data stored on computer disk or by electronic means which is capable of conversion into a visual image

'child pornography' means any visual depiction, including (snipped out for brevity) video (again snipped), of sexually explicit conduct, where:

the production involves a minor iengaging in sexually explicit conduct

appears to be engaging...

created, adapted or modified to appear...

conveys the image that appears...

(three dots mean same thing followed)

Section 2257

...video tape...

-contains one or more visual depictions, made after Nov. 1, 1990
of sexually explicit conduct

- is produced in whole or in part with materials that have been mailed or shipped interstate or foreign commerce,

shall create and maintain individually identifiable records pertaining to every performer portrayed in such a visual depiction.

parts (b) through (i) of the section pertain to those whom subsection (a) applies to.

Given this, I think the judge was on the money except maybe for the point I stated earlier that haas the grey area...”

“So Treebeard, are you saying that I can escape prosecution?”

“I think that, if you start running now, Ashcroft will have a hard time catching you (especially with his gall bladder trailing behind him)”

“Whew!”

“LMAO.

State and local laws would be different.

The intent of kiddy porn laws is to stop the trafficking in pix of nude kids among pedophiles.

Parents with pix of their kids taking baths is hardly the target, but overzealous prosecutors sometimes lose sight of a law's intent.

The difference might be how and where a photo is being circulated, or the fact that it is being circulated rather than kept in a parent's album.

Some of these laws obviously need refining. Sounds like the Florida court was doing just that.”

“Let's concentrate on the good news:

More teenage breasts!”

“Maybe I'll get a Tabby cat to keep the Evil Ashcroft away!”

“Geo, jurisdiction is th other factor that I have been looking at and can't seem to find more on this story to determine that. They mentioned racketeering, which is a federal charge and that the judge was a circuit judge. I'm not sure, but this leads me to believe that federal law may play into this. Chili, where are you? I need help, man!!”

“chili's in New Orleans, with his own Girl Gone Wild...”

“Or Prosecutor?

Chips76?

Where the hell are you guys?”

“I'm just a lousy paralegal!”

“You can say that again!”

“Of all the gall (bladder)...”

“Don't go gettin' your gall stones in a twist.”

“what i want to know is, where can i get a copy?”

“What I do know treebeard is that if you expect any uniformity in how laws are applied, you should not hold your breath. And in the case of kiddy porn, you are dealing with scumbags who traffic in photographs.

In reality, a photograph of a nude kid should not necessarily be considered offensive to most people, nor should it appeal to prurient interest. But it does appeal to the prurient interest of pedophiles, hence the laws. What ends up happening is the kids end up being exploited, and that is what is wrong about it.

And connections to child sexual abuse are pretty well established.

Does that apply in the case of a parent taking a photo of a little one in the tub? No. Does it apply in the case of shooting videos of teenage girls exposing their boobs? Apparently not.

But some laws are so all-embracing that unintended targets get caught in the snare.

It would be interesting to hear from legal beagles on the issue. But I think it comes down to states' rights and local standards.”

“What do y'all think about porn produced with adult actors who look underage? That was specifed in the Federal law as kiddie porn as well, but I think that clause got struck down.”

“Geo, I am speaking from strictly the standpoint of interpreting the law. This is not from a morality posture. The reason I think that the U.S. Code applies is because of the reasons stated above. I don't have enough here to determine jurisdiction, so whether state and local law take precedence over federal law is a matter of conjecture at this point...”

“No, adult actors pretending to be younger does not constitute kiddy porn, although there are some prosecutors who are not happy with that interpretation.”

“thora birch showed her breasts in "american beauty" when she was 17. there have been playboy centerfolds under 18. nudity without sex is not pornography. whether or not it is porn is a non-issue. however, im pretty sure parental or guardian permission has to be given. but if the girls say theyre 18, then it gets tricky. to be on the safe side, the film-makers need to ask for proof of age before including clips”

“Been wondering about the question of jurisdiction in this one. You have any thoughts as to what I posted above. Curiosity getting to me here...”